Tag Archives: Columbia University

Upcoming Event: Athena Film Festival February 7th to 10th in New York

Posted on by

The Athena Film Festival will take place on Barnard College and Columbia University campuses and co-hosted by the Athena Center for Leadership Studies and Women & Hollywood from February 7th to February 10th.

As the closing film, the Festival will be screening a sneak preview of the documentary BRAVE MISS WORLD by Cecilia Peck Voll. The film tells the story of Linor Abargil who was held captive, stabbed, and raped just before winning the Miss World crown. Ten years later Abargil confronts her past while committing herself to anti-rape activism on behalf of other survivors. The film’s director, along with producer & editor Inbal Lessner will be present at the screening for a Q&A.

For more information on group or discount tickets, please please contact Tami Woronoff, Outreach Coordinator.

More information on BRAVE MISS WORLD can be found here: http://athenafilmfestival.com/program/2013-films/miss-brave-world/

Critic’s Pick: Disciplinary Procedure

Posted on by

We’ve covered a lot so far when looking at what makes a good sexual assault policy, but there’s one really important aspect that we’ve not yet addressed: the disciplinary procedure. There is so much at stake during a campus judicial proceeding, and the process can make or break an experience of a student seeking justice regarding a sexual assault. This is the point where, regardless of what is written in the policy, things can really break down if disciplinary procedures are not standardized and consistently enforced.

It’s really hard to assess exactly how disciplinary procedures work on different campuses just from reading things online. Obviously, I am most familiar with my own school’s procedure, so I’m going to talk about some of the really important aspects of a disciplinary procedure (I’ll try to introduce them in the order they might come up during a real hearing) and analyze what Columbia University is doing!

Statute of Limitations

Perhaps you’ve heard about the students at the University of Oklahoma, who took action after finding out that a student could not file if it was more than 30 days after the assault took place! Considering the amount of time it takes many survivors to come to terms with what happened, let alone prepare to file a complaint, that is a ridiculous statute of limitations (the school’s president agreed to increase it to one year). Columbia is much better about this—complaints may be filed against students who are currently enrolled in a school or on leave, in which case the hearing may be postponed until the respondent student has re-enrolled. There is also a provision that if charges are filed against a student in his/her final semester but the hearing process is not completed by the end of the semester, the respondent’s diploma may be withheld pending a final outcome. This makes sense: students should be able to file within the campus judicial system at any time, regardless of when the assault occurred, as long as the respondent is still in school.

The Hearing Panel

Columbia’s hearing panel is made up of two deans and one student chosen from a trained pool and all having no affiliation or other connection with either party. Both the complainant and respondent are given the names of all the panelists before the hearing and can challenge any member based on conflict of interest or prior acquaintance/association. If the student member of the panel is challenged, the parties can mutually agree to exclude the student hearing panelist entirely, so the panel would consist of only the two deans. In addition, it seems that the student member does not need to be in agreement about the finding. For there to be a finding of a violation of the policy, the panel does not have to be unanimous but both deans must be convinced. Essentially, if the student disagrees, his/her opinion does not matter. What’s the point of having a student on the panel then? Perhaps the student contributes to the discussion when trying to figure out an outcome, but it seems like if they are going through the trouble of training student panelists and having them spend their time hearing these cases, their opinion should be taken into account.

My guess is that there would be students filing a complaint who would not want student panelists at all, especially on a small campus. Even if the complainant or respondent did not directly know the student panelist, it’s quite possible there would be mutual friends and the possibility that confidentiality could be broken. My fear is that having student panelists might deter some students from filing. On the other hand, maybe students want a student there as a peer—someone who might understand the type of situation they were in, the kind of social environment on the campus, etc. Either way, I think what’s best is giving students the option to opt in or out of having students on the panel.

Training

Obviously, all hearing panelists should be trained. Columbia does this—wonderful! Anyone making any sort of decision on sanctions or appeals should also be trained. This is where Columbia has fallen behind. In addition, the new OCR guidelines state:

Training for employees should include practical information about how to identify and report sexual harassment and violence. OCR recommends that this training be provided to any employees likely to witness or receive reports of sexual harassment and violence, including teachers, school law enforcement unit employees, school administrators, school counselors, general counsels, health personnel, and resident advisors.

There’s a bunch of other tidbits about training in the guidelines as well. Ideally, every administrator, staff, faculty member, or any person at the university that comes into contact with students, as well as all the students at the university, should be trained to handle disclosures and know the resources available. Training that raises awareness and builds skills is essential in creating a safer campus community that is inhospitable to violence and encourages reporting.

Complainant/Survivor Support

Both students should have the same opportunities for support and information during a hearing. Columbia explicitly states:

Both students are entitled to have a Supporter present at the hearing. The Supporter must be a current member of the Columbia University community (faculty, staff or student). The Supporter, however, should not be someone who has a current formal role (e.g., an advisor, professor, coach, etc.) with both of the students or the other student, such that there is a potential conflict of interest.

In addition, the Supporter cannot be a witness, lawyer (either party can consult an attorney outside the hearing room) or faculty member of the student. The Supporter cannot intervene in the hearing, only support the student in a non-disruptive way. Whatever the rule is for having support during the hearing, fairness and due process demand that both parties have the same options for support.

Evidence

The way the complainant was dressed and his/her past sexual history should not be used as evidence during a hearing. Victim-blaming is rampant in our rape culture, and practices that focus on what the victim was doing at the time of the assault only serve to reinforce that blaming. Columbia clearly states:

The prior sexual history of either party, other than the history of a sexual relationship between the parties, is not admissible in the hearing, except testimony submitted by a party concerning his or her own sexual history. Either party may submit evidence of the history of any sexual relationship between the parties. If either party submits such evidence, then the other party has the right to respond to that evidence.

There seems to be no explicit mention of the way the complainant was dressed, but Columbia does make clear that they are only concerned with what happened surrounding the particular incident in question (meaning they don’t want character witnesses, etc.) because what they are trying to determine is if the respondent violated the sexual assault policy.

Minimum Sanctions

Should universities have minimum sanctions? Columbia doesn’t. The policy says:

Sanctions include, but are not limited to, reprimand/warning, disciplinary probation, suspension, or dismissal; a student may also be barred from certain University facilities or activities, or required to attend education programming.

There is a whole range of sanctions determined on a case-by-case basis, and this system has advantages and disadvantages. First, I think it acknowledges that there are gray areas and different circumstances. It may give students who made a mistake a chance to learn something (maybe from attending educational programming) and never sexually assault someone again. On the other hand, universities can get a bad rap for not taking sexual assault seriously enough. There is the risk that a serial rapist will be allowed to remain on campus in a setting where their next victims are just down the hall. It’s a tough balance, but what needs to be clear is that if there is a violation of the policy, schools will take that seriously and recognize when someone needs to be removed from campus for safety and justice.

Appeals Process

When it comes to the appeals process, there are three very important parts of a good procedure:

  1. Both the complainant and respondent should be able to appeal. The students should be given equal rights to appeal the outcome of the hearing following due process. This is currently not the case at Columbia—only the respondent can appeal, but this is something that they are looking to change in the near future.
  2. One person should not be given all of the power in the appeals process. Often, one university official can strike down the sanctions that were imposed, and when the possibility of a conflict of interest exists because the person making the decision is a Dean of the student in question, this is problematic. Columbia currently has it set up so that the Dean of Student Affairs makes the final decision on sanctions after a recommendation from the Hearing Panel. The respondent then can appeal to the Dean of the school that he/she is enrolled in, and this Dean has complete authority at that point on what happens to the sanctions. Some sort of check on this power is important.
  3. There should be a reasonable amount of time given for a student to appeal. When a Columbia student finds out the outcome and sanctions from the Dean of Student Affairs, he/she then has 30 days to appeal. This is a really long time, especially for the complainant to wait. It leaves survivors on edge for a whole month after the hearing is supposedly over and gives too much time for the respondent to find a procedural error or some other grounds for appeal. For some universities, this window of time is as little as 3 days, but generally, no more than about a week seems reasonable to me.

Again, these are just a few of the important issues that come up when discussing a campus judicial process. There are many more we could talk about, but I just wanted to go over a few key things to start thinking about when looking at your school’s policies and procedures. If you want to know more about what your school is doing in terms of disciplinary procedures, any current student or recent alumni can walk through their policy by participating in SAFER’s Campus Accountability Project. Submit your policy today!

Wednesday Campus Activism: LINK OVERLOAD

Posted on by

I can’t even wrap my head around everything that’s going on right now. So many students doing awesome work, and in the midst of it all SAFER has endorsed the Campus SaVE Act (more on that soon). It looks like Sexual Assault Activism Month is going to end on a number of high notes. Just look at all of this:

Washington University, Stanford University, Brandeis, and Swarthmore all made policy changes in light of the OCR “Dear Colleague” letter, sparking some campus dialogue on the issue. UMass and the University of Vermont are making some important changes as well.

After three years of investigating, student journalists at the University of Maryland found that in the past ten years, only four students were found responsible for sexual assault.

The Columbia Spectator has been running a lot of great material on campus sexual assault, but this piece on the disciplinary process is a must-read. This lengthy article from the Georgetown Hoya is also quite impressive.

I’ve been collecting stories for a week on the fantastic action being taken at the University of Oklahoma. Last week students were celebrating the results of their hard work, as the school’s president agreed to increase the statute of limitations for reporting a sexual assault from 30 days (!!!!! what???) to one year. He has also said he will work on implementing mandatory sexual assault education for incoming students. The student movement started when one survivor came forward with her story about coming up against that ridiculous statute.

I’m a little behind on this but: The USC Walk-Out for a Safer Campus? Yes.

Students at Boston University are saying that they don’t know how to access sexual assault services or what’s in the school’s policy, and they want better education on the issue.

In response to the Title IX investigation pending against the school, Yale has put together a committee to review sexual assault policies and procedures. There are no students on the committee, but the school has arranged strategy sessions between faculty, staff, and students to get student feedback.

With all of this momentum, major news outlets are paying attention, with both Time and CNN running stories on campus sexual assault, and the NY Times taking a position. What’s next?

Sexual Assault Policies Only Work If You Enforce Them

Posted on by

So, that’s a really DUH statement, right? But this week I feel like it bears mentioning, as two schools with pretty decent sexual misconduct policies have failed students by not enforcing and adhering to the very policies they put into place.

In the past couple of months I’ve been writing about some great steps that Brown University has taken to reform their sexual assault policy and raise awareness on campus. But recently Brown has been in the news because of a lawsuit filed by a former student who says that after being accused of rape he was forced to leave the school without a proper investigation into the incident. He maintains that he was falsely accused and he settled with the complainant and agreed to leave the school only because he was threatened with criminal charges. However, I don’t know the details of this case, and can’t and won’t make any statements in regards to whether or not a rape occurred. But it is clear that the disciplinary process was mishandled:

After the student amended her complaint to include rape, Brown officials met with Mr. McCormick and presented him with a one-way ticket home to Wisconsin. According to the lawsuit, they denied his requests for a copy of the complaint against him and he was not given an opportunity to provide his version of events. He was told only that he faced a complaint of “sexual misconduct,” the lawsuit asserts.

…The lawsuit also asserts that a Brown dean arranged for Mr. McCormick to face an administrative hearing rather than have his case heard by a panel of peers, faculty and deans.

Let’s check out the rights that Brown’s disciplinary procedures guarantee to students charged with violating the code of conduct:

  1. To be informed in writing of the charge(s) and alleged misconduct.
  2. To be assumed not responsible of any alleged violations unless she/he is so found through the appropriate disciplinary hearing.
  3. To have an advisor during a formal investigation, a hearing before the University Disciplinary Council, an administrative hearing, or a student organization hearing. The advisor may be any person of their choice within the University community who is not an attorney.
  4. To have a reasonable length of time to prepare a response to any charges.
  5. To be informed of the evidence upon which a charge is based and accorded an opportunity to offer a relevant response.
  6. To be given every opportunity to articulate relevant concerns and issues, express salient opinions, and offer evidence before the hearing body or officer. (Students have the right to prepare a written statement in matters that may result in separation from the University.)
  7. To be afforded confidentiality, in accordance with University practices and legal requirements.
  8. To request that a hearing officer or member of a hearing body be disqualified on the grounds of personal bias.
  9. To have a timely determination of the charges.
  10. To appeal a decision.
  11. To refrain from providing information that is self-incriminating.

Now granted, I don’t know when this policy was implemented and if this was the version of the policy that existed when the student was forced to leave the school in 2006, however the Times article notes that the former student has “said the university had failed to follow its own disciplinary policies.” I have no idea why in this particular case Brown decided to disregard their procedure (the article suggests perhaps because the complainant’s father was a Brown alum and donor) but they did a serious disservice to all their students in doing so. While we usually focus on the rights of the survivor, it’s also imperative to uphold the rights of the accused, both because it’s absolutely important to protect individual students and because when you disregard the rights of the accused you add fuel to the fire of those who want to paint campus rape hearings as unfair witch hunts.

On the other side of the spectrum is this sad story out of Columbia that Twe blogged about earlier today.  An anonymous survivor wrote a description of her traumatic journey through Columbia’s disciplinary procedure after she was sexually assaulted. She describes a number of serious issues with the way her case was handled, among them:

During the hearing itself, there were multiple errors committed by the panel that were actually more hurtful to my own case, including but not limited to the respondent’s submission of a statement that I had not seen before and illegitimate contact with the panel, probing and hurtful inquiries geared toward my witness and best friend, and the approval of all three of the respondent’s witnesses, none of whom I had ever met before beyond simple introductions.

There’s a lot going on here, and a number of things she describes do reflect flaws in Columbia’s policy, but let’s just compare one part of her reality to what’s exactly in Columbia’s disciplinary process:

Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed prior to the hearing of their rights to identify witnesses and documents. Witnesses’ names and a brief summary of their anticipated testimony will be submitted for transmission to the Hearing Panel at least two days in advance of the first session of the Hearing. Rebuttal witnesses, if any, may be identified and their names forwarded to the Manager during the Hearing process. Should the Hearing Panel determine that a witness’s testimony will be taken, a brief summary of the witness’s testimony will be sent to the other party when possible at least two days in advance of the witness’s appearance. Witnesses scheduled to appear will be advised of the process, as well as confidentiality requirements.

The policy is very clear about informing the “other party” of the witness’s testimony prior to their appearance. So why wasn’t procedure followed?

SAFER focuses on policy because we honestly, strongly believe that a thorough policy will, among many other things, prevent both of the situations described above. And to a certain extent, both Brown and Columbia had policies that were set up to do just that. That they failed to follow-through remains somehwat of a mystery to me, but just reiterates the importance of ACTUALLY ENFORCING POLICY and establishing oversight to make sure it’s being properly enforced.

Columbia Student Survivor’s Story Highlights School’s ‘Failure’

Posted on by

Amanda Hess over at The Sexist highlighted recently two students who have been speaking out in regards to rape on their campus – in two very different ways. The first student wrote about their experience as a survivor at Columbia University in the Columbia Spectator. Another student turned to Facebook as a way to name students as the rapists of other students.

If you have been following the issue of schools inadequately addressing sexual assault, sadly what the Columbia survivor isn’t as shocking, but for me it definitely was as heartbreaking (probably because I could relate to many facets of her story). The student went into the judicial process feeling confident about the sexual assault policy and the hearing panel agreed that she indeed was assaulted. Unfortunately that was not the end.

The panel ruled in my favor with a 30-page report detailing the many ways in which the respondent had violated the policy, as well as seven different recommended sanctions, the harshest of which included suspension for the remainder of the semester. The report and panel decision was then forwarded to Kevin Shollenberger, dean of student affairs and judicial affairs, for approval….I never imagined that the sanctions would be struck down, pared down to the mere removal of the respondent from housing and a mark on his record.

I was at first impressed to see that the panel actually reached the conclusion that the respondent was guilty, but sadly one person was able to drastically diminish the original sanction agreed on by multiple people. This is slightly reminiscent of the case at UMass-Amherst where a admitted rapist got no punishment whatsoever.

The survivor also hints that they believe that if “the respondent been a member of the community without money and power, this entire case would have turned out completely differently,” which is completely unsurprising as well. At schools like Columbia, unfortunately there oft seems to be implications of other additional politics at play when a student allegedly rapes another student. While she can’t do anything about her particular case (or could she?), she is speaking out in hopes that sharing her story will be a stepping stone to creating change.

The student at American University was not a survivor of campus rape herself, but posted a note naming students by name as rapists. It understandably caused a lot of ruckus on campus, including supporters of the students she named harassing her in person while walking around campus and calling her at late hours of the night.

However, harassment was not the only result of her bold Facebook act. Amanda writes,

After removing the note, Rubenstein finally heard from the woman she had followed into the bedroom. “That’s the most beautiful thing that came out of all this,” says Rubenstein. “She called me and asked me why I took my status down…She said that if the other victims decide they want to do something, that she might want to be there to do something too,” she says.

And while I am not encouraging all students to write statuses and Facebook notes naming students as rapists,  I think it is great that she was able to support a stranger and help a survivor.

In the case of sexual assault and rape it often is too late to change the original event, but the aftermath is just as important as the rape. I applaud the women for wanting to help others and being so brave to take a stance on such a serious issue and hope that the ripple effect of their actions go far.

Lifelong skills from SAFER

Posted on by

Following Ashley’s post yesterday, I heard this week from one of SAFER’s founders about a long protest walk she’s helping organize against Prop. 8. A couple from L.A. is walking all the way to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco to gather stories and support for the movement to revoke Prop. 8. They have traveled two days so far, and you can follow their progress on their blog as they go. So applause and thanks to Tracie and Valerie for the blood, sweat, and tears they will shed in the next few weeks to bring attention to Prop. 8′s denial of their equality.

But I also want to offer a shout-out to Sarah, who is helping to orchestrate media coverage for the walk using skills she first acquired challenging Columbia’s sexual assault policy eight years ago! One of the reasons I love working with SAFER is that the students we mentor go on to use their grassroots organizing skills against sexual violence and for whatever other causes they feel passionately about. Organizing is an amazing kind of work to know how to do, it gives you a lot of power to make your voice heard and I’m proud that Sarah and SAFER are constantly working to share those skills and pass them on.

Rape victim shows “resolve”, “poise and precision”

Posted on by

It’s refreshing to read a positive portrayal of a rape victim in the media, it’s just too bad that it takes a case as extreme as that of the Columbia University grad student. Thankfully, the journalists broaden their positive characterization of this survivor, to speak about the possibility of similar reactions of other rape victims:

…experts say the case illustrates the mental toughness some rape victims can summon and a tactic some use to survive: They try to connect with their attackers in the hope of awakening compassion or gathering clues.

But victims who engage their rapists also can complicate a case, sometimes forcing prosecutors to convince jurors that the victims’ friendly gestures were a ruse, said Marjorie Fisher, head of the Queens district attorney’s sex-crimes division.

“There are many things that rape victims do that might seem counterintuitive,” she said this week. “But you have to think hard about, ‘What would I do in that situation?’”

Columbia grad student rape trial gets play-by-play coverage

Posted on by

Thanks to one of our board members for pointing out the extensive coverage given to the Columbia grad student “torture-rape” trial by the Columbia student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator. At SAFER, we like to highlight strong student journalism about rape, and point out bad journalism. The Spectator’s approach to this current trial is to do a live blog from the courtroom. The newspaper staff posts updates every hour or two, detailing testimony and behavior of those involved. There are at least some people who are glued to the blog for details (see the comments section). I’m not sure how I feel about this approach. Is it informing or sensationalizing? I think it’s in line with how the larger media covers major events, with round-the-clock coverage and immediate updates. But I wonder if the play-by-play makes this into a bizarre form of voyeuristic entertainment for some. How do others feel about this?

Thoughts on Reproductive Justice

Posted on by

Gabriella Barbosa, Columbia University

Following the Reproductive Justice framework, reproductive justice will be achieved when we women and girls have the power (economic, social, and political) and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, our sexuality, and our reproduction. The question is how can we make this a reality? Our society has been dominated by gender inequality and hegemonic masculinity; our country was founded on the notion that only white men constitute citizens, and although for women this notion changed through the addition of the 19th amendment in 1920, the remnants and trauma of over a century of legalized inequality have remained and have become normalized. Change needs to come on all levels to end forms of oppression that have fueled this inequality and deprived us of control of even our own bodies.

Reproductive oppression exists in all areas of our lives; a facet of reproductive oppression that I’d like to focus upon is sexual violence. Sexual violence is a manifestation of reproductive oppression as the perpetrator of sexual violence denigrates the victim, dehumanizes her and treats her body as a sexual commodity thereby taking away the power she has over her body. The trauma from sexual violence affects all aspects of the victim’s life. Depression, suicidal thoughts or attempts, drug/alcohol abuse are all aftermaths of sexual violence, in fact almost one-third of sexual assault victims suffer from this trauma at some point (Rape in America).

Reproductive Justice calls for strategies that work against structural and societal conditions that lead to the epidemic of sexual violence against women. Within this framework, Reproductive Health means we have the right to have a responsible, satisfying, and safe sex life that includes being able to say yes to the sex we want and no to the sex we don’t want. As a female, I myself have personally experienced sexual violence, and so have most of my female friends. Going to university, I assumed that as a female I would be safe from having to experience any kind of violence, let alone sexual assault or rape. I think most people make this same assumption as college campuses invest a lot of money to keep their reputation untarnished. Yet there is an epidemic of sexual violence within this “safe” space of college campuses that has still yet to be addressed as ¼ of women are raped or sexually assaulted during their college years (National Institute of Justice).

Continue reading →